Originally Posted by Play The Man
America didn't just invade those countries and set up bases. The bases were part of the surrender agreements of WWII. Japan attacked the U.S. on December 7th, 1941. Germany started the aggression in Europe with their invasion of the Sudetenland and Poland. The U.S. helped stabilize those countries after the war and their subsequent economic success can at least partially be attributed to the magnanimity of the U.S. Since the end of the war, many countries have been able to skimp on defense spending because they can depend on the U.S. to protect them and they know that they are not at risk from an invasion or an attack from us. Furthermore, with the Marshall Plan and other forms of aid, the U.S. helped rebuild many countries after the war. In contrast, can you imagine how the U.S. and the Allied Forces would have been treated if the Axis Powers had won WWII? The Nazis probably would have wiped out every Jew in the U.S. Germany and Japan would have seized our natural resources and left us in poverty. Our government would have been abolished and we would be a vassal state of the Axis Powers. We would likely not have any personal liberties. In the vast scheme of things, allowing U.S. military bases in their countries is a small price to pay, considering the destruction that their countries precipitated with their belligerence.
England would have been treated well.
Hitler would have ordered the round-up of the Jews, although England has never had a high concentration of them. He would have called for the execution of the Government Ministers no doubt.
After that, Hitler had already said that he planned on reinstating the Nazi King Edward who only rulled for a year before Abdication. They were friends before the War. Hitler said that he would allow King Edward back on the Throne and they would split Europe in two and rule together. Hitler actually had quite an admiration for the British Empire, and the collonialism that our Empire had produced. He was also supportive of the Monarchy which was SO Germanic in origin, the Queen was forced to CHANGE HER SURNAME by Deedpoll!! Although she and her Descendants will be called "Windsor" its a fabricated name. More confusing still, her Husbands name is ALSO a complete fabrication. Mountbatten is not his real name either, his is a quadrupple-barrelled surname of Baltic descent.
Her Real name is Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha I believe. It actually the names of three districts of Germany that were run by princes at one point in time. The Family married into many European Monarchies, like Belgium, and Portugal also. The Ironey is that this name came in BY MARRIAGE
Victoria married Albert, and Albert was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. When Victoria died, for some reason her Heir decided to keep the MALE Surname of his Father. They changed it as quite a process over a couple of Kings all called George who reigned between the Start of the First and the End of the Second World War.
In Truth, the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha still reigns, at least until Elizabeth dies, then you could argue that Charles should take his Fathers Fabricated name and become Charles Mountbatten...of course a purist would tell you that as Mountbatten and Windsor are BOTH fabricated names...perhaps he should take his Fathers REAL surname...but then we'd be here forever trying to write that down